Original ResearchEmployer attitudes towards general health checks and HIV testing in the workplace
Introduction
Key groups affected by HIV/AIDS in the UK are migrant populations (especially from sub-Saharan Africa) and men who have sex with men.1 Late diagnosis of HIV is found particularly amongst migrants from Africa and is associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity, onward HIV transmission, and high health care costs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 There is an urgent need to expand HIV testing beyond specialised services to increase uptake and reach.7, 8, 9, 10
The workplace is advocated as an ideal setting for promoting health.11, 12, 13 Workplace health programmes are aimed at improving the mental and physical health and well-being of people at work, although they are strategically important for businesses and the economy.14, 15 These initiatives may involve health education and awareness raising, preventative lifestyle interventions (e.g. physical activity, weight management, smoking cessation) and health screening. Some organisations offer general health checks (GHCs) to their employees, either in isolation, or as part of a more coordinated workplace health programme. GHCs generally target common risk factors for chronic disease, including weight, body mass index, fitness testing or blood pressure. These health checks differ to occupational health surveillance where test results have health and safety connotations and may be required by law for employees exposed or potentially exposed to occupational hazards. By contrast, GHCs are promoted to employees as optional check-ups of their overall health, in order for employees to determine their risk of developing certain health problems.
Workplace GHCs may be considered as a useful mechanism for assessing individual health risks, increasing health awareness and advocating healthier lifestyle behaviours among employees. Although the evidence for longer-term behavioural changes resulting from GHCs is limited,16 employees value the investment of the organisation in their health and well-being, and they are accessed by individuals with diverse sociodemographic characteristics and occupational roles.17 Indeed, the workplace may be an useful platform for reaching individuals reporting risk factors for disease,17 and other ‘high-risk’ or vulnerable groups including those with limited access to primary health care or subcultural inertia with respect to anticipatory health care.18
Workplace HIV testing has been utilised in regions of the world where HIV prevalence is particularly high (especially sub-Saharan Africa) and within key sectors (such as mining, military, police, transport and healthcare organisations) that employ population groups that may be particularly vulnerable to HIV.19, 20, 21 Most programmes provide HIV testing as a distinct service that needs to be specifically sought out, rather than integrating it with other health tests.22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Evidence on the effectiveness of such programmes is extremely limited, but there is ongoing concern over lower than expected uptake of HIV testing.27, 28, 29 Workplace HIV testing programmes have uncovered a number of challenges from the perspective of workers (primarily fear of stigma and discrimination) and employers (primarily limited recognition of their potential role in HIV prevention and reluctance to bear the costs).28, 30
In the UK, workplace HIV testing (with a particular focus on migrant workers) has recently been found to be feasible, and acceptability among employees for ‘normalising’ testing within a wider GHC is overwhelmingly high (92%).31 Embedding HIV testing within workplace GHCs may therefore serve as a useful approach for increasing access to HIV testing and ultimately increase testing rates in the UK. However, little is known about the current provision of GHCs and whether this differs by job sector or organisational size. There is limited evidence around the nature of health checks being offered in UK workplaces; whether and how they are offered, what they include and whether HIV testing is already a part of this provision. Finally, a better understanding of employer's views towards workplace HIV testing including perceived benefits and caveats will inform future delivery strategies.
The overall aim of this study was to determine whether GHCs are routinely offered by organisations, and to assess employer perceptions of workplace HIV testing. The main objectives were to ascertain: [1] the proportion of organisations offering opt-in workplace HIV testing; [2] current provision of GHCs; [3] perceived benefits and caveats of workplace HIV testing; [4] interest in future delivery of workplace HIV testing; [5] organisational support needs for testing.
Section snippets
Methods
Ethical approval for the study was received from the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee of 20th March 2017 [Ref: LT12042016]. An online survey was created using Bristol Online Survey (BOS; https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk), a platform selected due to compliance with all UK data protection laws and the potential for access control, encryption and account security. The survey included nine items on organisation profiles, seven items on employer
Results
Representatives of 98 organisations from 25 job sectors completed the online survey (see Fig. 1). Company and employee profiles are described in Table 1. Seventy-six representatives (77.6%) reported that their organisations employed migrant workers. Of these, 39 reported the proportion of migrant workers in their organisations, which ranged from 1 to 76% (mean = 19.27%; SD = 20.88%).
In the 76 organisations who reported employing migrant workers, these workers reportedly came from sub-Saharan
Discussion
This study is the first to scope the provision of HIV testing in organisations across diverse job sectors in the UK. Opt-in HIV testing is currently not provided by almost all employers in this study, and HIV education and awareness is generally not included in workplace health promotion campaigns, although employer views towards HIV testing at work were largely positive.
Despite the strategic importance of employee well-being to public health and the economy,11, 12, 13 it was notable that less
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the survey review panel, in particular: Basharat Hussain, Jenny Hand (former CEO, Leicestershire Aids Support Service) and David Rowlands (DesignRedefined.co.uk).
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for the study was received from the University of Nottingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Ethics Committee of 20th March 2017 [Ref: LT12042016].
Funding
The study was supported by a University of Nottingham Economic and Social Research Council Impact Acceleration Award (ESRC IAA)
References (41)
- et al.
Migration and health in an increasingly diverse Europe
Lancet
(2013) HIV in the UK: 2016 report
(2016)- et al.
Projected lifetime healthcare costs associated with HIV infection
PLos One
(2015) Addressing late HIV diagnosis through screening and testing: an evidence summary
(2014)- et al.
Late presentation of HIV infection: a consensus definition
HIV Med
(2011) - et al.
HIV testing and counselling for migrant populations living in high-income countries: a systematic review
Eur J Publ Health
(2013) HIV testing in England: 2016 report
(2016)- et al.
HIV testing in community settings in resource rich countries: a systematic review
HIV Med
(2012) Consolidated guidelines on HIV testing services, 5Cs: consent, confidentiality, counselling, correct results and connection
(2015)Time to test for HIV: expanding HIV testing in healthcare and community services in England, Final Report
(2011)